Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />balance development with preservation <br />while approaching optimal use by: <br /> <br />. Deciding the appropriate type and <br />extent of floodplain uses by balanc- <br />ing the benefits of development with <br />potential flood losses and destruc- <br />tion of natural and beneficial <br />floodplain values. <br /> <br />. Considering the eff ec ts of decisions <br />about floodplain use and flood pro- <br />tection on upstream, downstream and <br />adjacent areas. <br /> <br /> <br />. Identifying, selecting, and assessing <br />the cost of the least environmentally <br />harmful means of effectively carrying <br />out decisions affecting the flood- <br />plain. <br /> <br />. Coordinating efforts and equitably <br />sharing costs among all affected <br />parties with the primary burden <br />placed on those benefiting from the <br />floodplain use <br /> <br />Need for Floodplain <br />Management <br /> <br />The present concepts of flood- <br />plain management are a result of the <br />continuing adaptation of public policy <br />to changing needs and conditions. They <br />reflect a shift in approach based on <br />the lessons of experience. <br /> <br />Prior to the 1960's, the national <br />approach to dealing with floods <br />consisted almost exclusively of the <br />construction of dams, levees and other <br />structures to impound or divert flood <br />waters. The overall impact of flood- <br />plain developments or the flood control <br />projects protecting them received <br />little attention. <br /> <br />It was apparent by the mid-60's <br />that, although flood control projects <br />prevented large amounts of damage, this <br />traditional approach required revision <br />for several reasons: <br /> <br />. Developments were taking place on <br />floodplains faster than projects <br />could be constructed to protect them. <br /> <br />. The availability of flood protection <br />through publicly funded projects <br />proved an inducement to further <br />development, frustrating all hope of <br />catching up with the growing flood <br />problem. <br /> <br />. The cost of the larger and larger <br />flood control projects required to <br />protect the additional development <br />was becoming exorbitant, putting an <br />unfair tax burden on the general <br />public to subsidize those who used <br />the floodplain without concern for <br />the consequences. <br /> <br />. Upstream land development <br />channelization was increasing <br />stream flood hazards. <br /> <br />and <br />down- <br /> <br />. Costs for disaster relief programs <br />were rapidly increasing. <br /> <br />. Existing flood control structures <br />were decreasing in effectiveness as <br />floodplain development continued. <br /> <br />. The natural and beneficial values of <br />floodplains were being rapidly <br />diminished by both development and <br />flood protection projects. <br /> <br />This recognition of the need for <br />change led to emergence of a broader <br />approach. This approach was designed to <br />comba t flood problems more eff ec ti vely <br />and to reconcile the objective of flood <br />loss reduction with that of preserving <br />and enhancing natural floodplain <br />values. This new approach was based on: <br /> <br />. Controlling development of flood- <br />plains through regulatory measures <br />and withholding financial assistance <br />from government for new developments <br />and improvp~ents to existing develop- <br />ments in areas subject to flooding. <br /> <br />. Using a wider range of tools to <br />reduce flood losses to both existing <br />and new structures and emphasizing <br />use of those tools causing less <br />severe environmental impacts. <br /> <br />. Assumption by state and local govern- <br />ments and private property owners of <br /> <br />21 <br />